DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yongjiang, et. al. (CN102658152A), in view of Sofiane Makhloufi, et. al. Synthesis, characterization, and electrocatalytic properties of La0.9Sr0.1Cr1−xCoxO3 perovskite oxides. J Aust Ceram Soc 55, 1–10 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41779-018-0204-5.
Regarding Claim 1, Yongjiang teaches a perovskite-type composite oxide powder (“[p.1] The perovskite catalyst prepared by this technology has the chemical formula of ABXB'1-XO3 (0≤ X ≤1”) represented by a general formula ABO3-δ (“ [p.2] Example 1: The stoichiometric molar ratio La:Ni:Co is 1:0.8:0.2”) (where δ represents an amount of deficiency of oxygen and 0 ≤ δ < 1), wherein an element contained in an A site is La, elements contained in a B site are Co and Ni (“[p.3] The chemical formula is LaNi0.8Co0.2O3”). Yongjiang at p.3. However, Yongjiang is silent as to a crystallite size determined by a Williamson-Hall method is equal to or greater than 20 nm and equal to or less than 100 nm.
Sofiane teaches a perovskite oxide for use within a fuel cell anode, and notes that “the perovskite oxides of the general composition ABO3 (A = La, Sr, Ce, Ba, Sm, and B = Co, Ni, Cu, or Cr,) with excellent electrical conductivities and electrocatalysis were considered as possible materials for the application of DMFC anode.” Sofiane at p.1. The samples ranged from a crystallite size of ~42 – 49 nm (measured by the Williamson-Hall equation), decreasing in crystallite size within increased Cobalt content. Id. at p.6. Sofiane teaches “indeed, the addition of cobalt allowed to raise the current density which is approximately four times higher for La0.9Sr0.1Cr0.6Co0.4O3 . . . This is possibly due to the porosity structure induced by cobalt addition, which acts positively on the catalytic activity by increasing the number of reactant accessible catalyst sites.” Id. at p. 8-9. In other words, Sofiane teaches a connection between an improvement to catalytic activity, and the crystallite size / cobalt molar fraction relationship within a Lanthanum perovskite oxide.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify the perovskite composite powder of Yongjiang, such that it comprises a crystallite size of 42 – 49 nm (i.e., within the range of 20 – 56.4 nm), because Sofiane teaches a benefit to catalytic activity, and because an overlapping range presents a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Claim 1 is obvious over Yongjiang, in view of Sofiane.
Regarding Claim 4, Claim 4 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Yongjiang.
Yongjiang teaches an “oxygen electrode catalyst,” including an oxygen electrode for use in a “solid fuel cell.” Yongjiang at p. 1. Taken together, Yongjiang teaches an air electrode for a solid oxide fuel cell, the air electrode comprising: the perovskite-type composite oxide powder according to claim 1.
Claim 4 is obvious over Yongjiang, in view of Sofiane.
Regarding Claim 5, Claim 5 relies upon Claim 4. Claim 4 is obvious over modified Yongjiang.
Yongjiang teaches an “oxygen electrode catalyst,” comprising a perovskite oxide, including an oxygen electrode for use in a “solid fuel cell.” Yongjiang at p. 1. Solid fuel cells are characterized by their use of a solid electrolyte, meaning that this “solid fuel cell” disclosure indicates a solid electrolyte. Taken together, Yongjiang teaches or at least strongly implies a fuel electrode: a solid electrolyte; and an air electrode, wherein as the air electrode, the air electrode according to claim 4 is used.
Claim 5 is obvious over Yongjiang, in view of Sofiane.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yongjiang, in view of Sofiane, further in view of Sun, et. al., Characterization of LaCoO3 Perovskite Catalyst for Oxygen Reduction Reaction in Zn-air Rechargeable Batteries, 24 (4) Journal of Hydrogen and New Energy 436 – 442, (2014).
Regarding Claim 2, Claim 2 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Yongjiang.
Yongjiang and Sofiane are silent as to the particle size distribution, although Sofiane teaches that the size of the crystallites changes the properties of perovskite composite materials.
Sun teaches a perovskite composite oxide comprising LaCoO3, wherein this material acts as an air electrode, for battery applications, namely, “[wherein] air electrodes[s] consist[] [of] active materials as a catalyst, carbon black as a conductive additive, and a polymeric binder. For the activity for ORR & OER, the chemical composition and surface area of the catalyst are very important in the bi-functional electrode . . . The electrochemical catalytic activities of LaCoO3 powders with different particle sizes for ORR & OER were characterized in alkaline electrolyte.” Sun at 437. Sun teaches lanthanum and cobalt based perovskites have received attention for fairly high catalytic activity and low cost synthesis. Id. Sun presents Table 1 and Fig. 3, wherein the particle size distribution was modulated by ball milling time, and the ensuing electrical conductivity was measured. Id. at 439. In general, the particle size distribution acted as a result effective variable, wherein electric conductivity peaked at 2 hours of ball milling and a mean particle size of 0.85 µm. Id. Regarding the term “Microtrac,” Microtrac is a brand of laser diffraction laser diffraction analyzers. Product by process claim limitations are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps – thereby, this is taken to imply a conventional laser diffraction particle size distribution measurement. MPEP 2113 (I).
PNG
media_image1.png
645
320
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 and Table 1 of Sun.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify the perovskite composite powder of Yongjiang, such that it comprises a particle size distribution calculated using a Microtrac particle size distribution measurement, a ratio D50N / D50v of a cumulative 50% particle size D50N calculated by a number distribution to a cumulative 50% particle size D50v calculated by a volume distribution is equal to or greater than 0.7, because the particle size distribution, and thereby the ratio between the number average and volume average methods of calculating this value, are known within the art (namely, Sun) to be a result effective variable, one of ordinary skill would arrive at the claimed ratio via routine optimization. MPEP 2144.05 (II).
Claim 2 is obvious over Yongjiang, in view of Sofiane, and further in view of Sun.
Regarding Claim 3, Claim 3 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Yongjiang.
Sun teaches a perovskite composite oxide comprising LaCoO3, wherein this material acts as an air electrode, for battery applications, namely, “[wherein] air electrodes[s] consist[] active materials as a catalyst, carbon black as a conductive additive, and a polymeric binder. For the activity for ORR & OER, the chemical composition and surface area of the catalyst are very important in the bi-functional electrode . . . The electrochemical catalytic activities of LaCoO3 powders with different particle sizes for ORR & OER were characterized in alkaline electrolyte.” Sun at 437. Sun teaches lanthanum and cobalt based perovskites have received attention for fairly high catalytic activity and low cost synthesis. Id. Sun presents Table 1 and Fig. 3, wherein the particle size distribution was modulated by ball milling time, and the ensuing electrical conductivity was measured. Id. at 439. In general, the particle size distribution acted as a result effective variable, wherein electric conductivity peaked at 2 hours of ball milling and a mean particle size of 0.85 µm. Id. Regarding the term “Microtrac,” Microtrac is a brand of laser diffraction laser diffraction analyzers. Product by process claim limitations are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps – thereby, this is taken to imply a conventional laser diffraction particle size distribution measurement. MPEP 2113 (I).
PNG
media_image1.png
645
320
media_image1.png
Greyscale
One of ordinary skill in the art would before the filing date of the claimed invention find it obvious to modify the perovskite composite powder of Yongjiang, such that wherein in the particle size distribution calculated by the Microtrac particle size distribution measurement, a relationship in the volume distribution between a 10% cumulative particle size D10V, a 50% cumulative particle size D50v and a 90% cumulative particle size D90v is 1.0 ≤ (D90v – D10v) / D50v ≤ 1.2, because the particle size distribution, and thereby the ratio between the number average and volume average methods of calculating this value, are known within the art (namely Sun) to be a result effective variable, one of ordinary skill would arrive at the claimed ratio via routine optimization. MPEP 2144.05 (II).
Claim 3 is obvious over Yongjiang, in view of Sofiane, and further in view of Sun.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
/K.R.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISHNA RAJAN HAMMOND whose telephone number is (571)272-9997. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:30 PM M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.R.H./Examiner , Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725